On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Simon Kirby <s...@hostway.ca> wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, I still don't understand how moving the unlock _up_ to cover
> less of the code can solve the race, but I will stare at your long
> explanation more tomorrow.
The lock we're moving up isn't the lock that actually protects the
whole allocation logic (it's the lock that then protects the pipe
contents when a pipe is *used*). So it's a useless lock, and moving it
up is a good idea regardless (because it makes the locks only protect
the parts they are actually *supposed* to protect.
And while extraneous lock wouldn't normally hurt, the sleeping locks
(both mutexes and semaphores) aren't actually safe wrt de-allocation -
they protect anything *inside* the lock, but the lock data structure
itself is accessed racily wrt other lockers (in a way that still
leaves the locked region protected, but not the lock itself). If you
care about details, you can walk through my example.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
